H. Keith Henson
Box 60012 (302 College Ave.)
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-325-7533
650-776-5702
hkhenson@pacbell.net
April 13, 2001
Sergeant Secor
Deputy Judge
Hemet Station, Riverside Sheriff Dept.
By Fax (909) 791-3410
Dear Sergeant Secor and Deputy Judge:
This is a follow-up to the interesting conversation we had at the
Hemet Station last Monday regarding my trying to report criminal
conduct on the part of certain members of the District Attorney’s
office. I don’t expect an answer, but note the cc list.
Your arguments against taking a complaint fell into three areas.
First, the attempt to get me arrested for failure to appear failed due
to me accidentally finding out about the arraignment. Thus no harm
was done and therefore there was no crime.
This makes no sense to me. Attempted bank robbery and attempted
murder are crimes, even if no harm has been done. Further, Section
622 of the Penal code specifies that perpetrators are to be sentenced
to one half of the sentence for the crime if they try and fail to
commit some crime. I am, for example, charged with 422/622 in the
case against me. Also note, I was reporting a crime under Section 132
of the Penal Code, which states that providing false information to a
court is a felony and does not require that any harm to come from it.
Second, that the "Release with: LETTER TO APPEAR" which is on the
court’s computer record of my case has no significance because it
might refer to "some packet of documents being released."
Monday afternoon I went into the computer records of the court to see
what was said in other cases. Within the next ten ascending case
numbers from my case I found other examples and variations such as
"Release with: BAIL." I asked the court clerk what this notation
meant and she stated that it was the status of the person against whom
the complaint was lodged, and further explained that the "LETTER" is
always the defendant’s copy of the four-part carbonless complaint
form. She made the point that the legal effect of this notation was
the same as a *sworn statement under oath* that the defendant had
notice either by being handed the complaint form in person or it being
mailed. On questioning she said the defendant’s copies (LETTER) went
out by regular mail.
This verifies the opinion of several lawyers I have consulted that
this notation in the computer records would have been ample cause for
any judge to issue an arrest warrant had I not shown up for
arraignment September 15, 2000. As I attempted to show you (and was
rebuffed) I *have* the "defendant’s copy." It was (in error to be
sure) handed to me in the court the day I was arraigned. It has no
fold creases which is physical evidence that it was never mailed.
Between the note in the court’s record, and the unfolded and never
mailed "defendant’s copy," I have *physical evidence* that false
information was introduced to the court in violation of Section 132 of
the Penal code. Also, this was done under color of law which enhances
the crime, and could make it into a Federal case.
Further, I claim at least one Deputy DA conspired with Scientology
lawyers Moxon and Paquette who had set up a bogus *videotaped*
deposition several days before the complaint issued. The arraignment
was set for the same date as the deposition in a case called Hurtado
v. Berry. Even though there was no reason for me to be deposed in
that case, I had agreed to the deposition date of September 15, 2000
on August 25, 2000, six days before the complaint was issued. It was
my trying to get a protective order in the Hurtado deposition which
caused this scheme, and in fact the entire Hurtado case, to go off the
rails.
Conspiracy is covered in Section 182, which reads in part:
182. (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime. (2)
Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, *or to
procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.*
Normally, a scheme--failed or not--to get someone arrested for failure
to appear would be far fetched to the point of laughter. However, it
is a *religious precept* of Scientology that all their critics are
criminals, no matter how hard the Scientologists have to work to make
them criminals. There are at least a dozen exposed examples, the most
spectacular one being the author of "The Scandal of Scientology,"
Paulette Cooper. Scientology agents stole letterhead paper with Ms.
Cooper’s fingerprints on it, sent themselves a bomb threat, and turned
the bomb threat letter over to the FBI. Ms Cooper was indicted by a
grand jury on the basis of this faked evidence. Eventually she was
exonerated when an FBI raid on Scientology in the late 70s turned up
extensive files on this and similar planned operations against Ms
Cooper. Other and more recent examples are listed in the attached
letter to the FBI.
Your third reason for not taking a complaint, that the Sheriff’s
office is forbidden by law from taking complaints about criminal
conduct on the part of the district attorney, is one which--if
true--brooks no argument.
Please let me know if this protection extends to the Sheriff’s office
taking a complaint under Section 182 against Moxon and Paquette. They
attempted to require me to be in a far away deposition at the same
time as the arraignment.
Because of the dates, they could not have set it up after the
arraignment date was fixed. Thus the information flow had to be from
Moxon and Paquette to Deputy DA Tom Gage in order for him to sign and
file the complaint September 1, 2000 which resulted in overlapping
arraignment and deposition dates for September 15, 2000.
Sincerely,
H. Keith Henson
cc FBI
Attorney General
News media
posted